Abbildungen der Seite

that the full system of punctuation, inaugurated by Moses the Punctuator, was still further improved by his son, R. Judah the Corrector, and perhaps completed by the Karaite Achaof Irak. This system was the Babylonian or Assyrian, so called from its local origin. Some of the Karaite MSS. exhibit this punctuation, and more would no doubt have been preserved with it, had not the practice of substituting in its place in old MSS. the somewhat more modern and better system of the scholars of Palestine prevailed. The Babylonian vowel-signs were placed, for the most part, above the consonants, those of the Palestine Jews below. Pinsker has shown us that the system of vocalization adopted by the scholars of the Colleges at Tiberias dates from about the year 570 of our era. Whether there exists any considerable difference of reading between the older Karaite MSS. and those we already are acquainted with, it is at present premature to say. But it is very probable that before either system of punctuation was adopted, other more rudimentary systems were in use, bearing somewhat of the same relation to the Palestine and Assyrian systems that the diacritic signs or points in Syriac do to the more developed vowel signs of Greek and Syriac origin, which are in common

nse- C. H. H. W.


Constitutional Progress. Seven Lectures delivered' before the University of Oxford. By Montagu Burrows, M.A., Chichele Professor of Modern History. London: John Murray. 18G9.

In this volume, which consists of Lectures originally delivered at Oxford in the autumn of 1863, and the succeeding autumns down to that of 1868 inclusive, Professor Burrows has laid before his readers a very varied intellectual repast. With the exception of the third and fourth (which were delivered in the same year), and the last in the series, these Lectures appear to have been composed irrespectively of each other, and without any view to their ultimate combination under the form in which they are now presented to the public. Hence their union under a common name could only be effected by the adoption of such a title as, to adopt the words of the author himself, should rather express an idea which ran more or less through each Lecture than describe any connection between them. With regard to the title which has been actually selected, we may remark that, after dissociating the two words which compose it from the euphemistic sense in which they are usually understood, it is perhaps, on the whole, the most apt which could have been chosen to designate the Lectures in their aggregate form. But we find one prominent characteristic appearing, in a greater or less degree, in all of them, of which it affords no indication. It in no way prepares us for the religious and ecclesiastical point of view from which Professor Burrows has invariably regarded the different political transactions and events which have passed under his survey, and has traced their progressive or retrograde tendencies. That this should be the case in the three Lectures which we have mentioned as forming exceptions to the want of connection between the different members of the series—treating, as those three Lectures professedly do, of the relations between Church and State—was a matter of course; but the same feature, if less prominently, is yet no less distinctly, discernible in the other four Lectures. And it is the presence of this feature which, as we think, gives a peculiar value to the book at a time when, whatever be the convictions of the numerical majority amongst us, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that there is a powerful and influential section in our midst who are desirous, alike in politics and morality, in science and education, of separating the secular from the religious, the material from the spiritual.

Of the first and second Lectures in the volume, we must be content with a very brief survey. The first is entitled, "The Chief Architect of the English Constitution;" a designation applied by Professor Burrows to Edward I., of whose character and administration the Lecture is a review. In his estimate of the character of that monarch, the Professor endorses, though with certain reservations, the opinion expressed by the author of " The Greatest of all the Plantagenets. Whatever may be thought of the appropriateness of the title of Chief Architect to one who, as appears from the remarks of our author himself, exhibited his wisdom rather in regulating than in initiating the course of legislation by which his reign was signalised, the importance of that reign as an era in the constitutional history of our country can hardly be overstated. Not to mention the settlements of our judicial procedure, of the principles of national finance and of the tenure of land, which we owe tc that period—settlements which have left their mark on our institutions even to the present day,—the enforced taxation of the clergy, the restriction of ecclesiastical control over the personal property of deceased persons, and the enactment of those laws which were afterwards developed into the statutes of Praemunire and Mortmain, inflicted in the reign of Edward I. upon the ecclesiastical and spiritual domination of Rome in this country the most decided blows to which it was subjected during any reign between the Conquest and the Reformation. By his observations. on these important modifications in the relations of the Church to the State in this country, Professor Burrows gives us a foretaste of the subject of his third and fourth Lectures, to which this Lecture thus forms a fitting, though undesigned, introduction.

In his second Lecture, the subject of which is "Ancient and Modern Politics," Professor Burrows insists on the political lessons which we may derive from the study of ancient history; and, by way of illustration, draws two or three very interesting parallels between the course of events in ancient Greece and in the Europe of the last and present centuries. With the first of these parallels we confess that wo do not entirely sympathize. Instead of comparing the Peloponnesian War to the struggle of the allied European nations against Republican and Imperial France, we should rather be inclined to trace a correspondence between the zeal of Sparta and her allies in forwarding the revolt of the Athenian dependencies against their mother city, and the ardour with which France embraced the cause of our own seceding colonies in America. There is surely a far greater resemblance to the maritime empire of Athens, in tho extension of our own colonies in the eighteenth century than in the mushroom growth of the French power under tho first Napoleon. This latter appears to us rather to find its prototypo in the shortlived ascendancy enjoyed by Sparta over the other members of the Hellenic community, after the close of the Peloponnesian war. In his comparison of William Pitt with Pericles, Professor Burrows has been moro happy; and wo readily admit the lessons which our politicians of the present day might learn from the course of the party struggles and the downward democratic tendency of Athens after she had lost the guidance of her great statesman. With the exception of the last years of the Roman Republic, in which the elements of foreign dominion and domestic luxury are more prominent than in the Grecian type, we know of no political situation in ancient times which appears to afford a more exact parallel to our own, than that of Athens between the death of Pericles and {absit omen) her overthrow by the Doric confederacy. The ruin of Athens was effected, not from without, but from within; not by the strength of her foes, but by the ignorance and errors of her own statesmen; and it is a serious question whether we are not exposing ourselves to a similar risk by the extension of political power as far beyond the classes which possess sufficient education to wield it aright as it formerly fell short of embracing them. Professor Burrows points out the only available means of avoiding this risk. Since tho restric. Vol.cs.—No.37a. 3D

tion of political privileges is impossible, we must aim at a co-extensive diffusion of a sound and a religious education.

"Observing how surely in the career of a self-governed people, ancient or modern, step after step does necessarily bring one class after another into possession of political power, we learn to look about for the best means of averting a great danger; and we see that, if we are to rally each of these classes in succession round the Constitution, we must educate them beforehand. This is indeed a trite observation; but it is not so generally perceived, that this education must be moral and religious, as well as intellectual. The classes which ruined Athens were intellectual enough. Even in heathen times the signal for political debasement was given by the overthrow of religion. A little reflection on these examples will show that this education must not be mere mechanical instruction, not mere power of reading a newspaper, but an education which includes history; an education which teaches men to reason, to weigh evidence, to control impulse, to choose the solid in preference to the showy, to distinguish between the specious people-flatterer and the capable statesman. How many of the very books from which these classes are taught require to be re-written! Perhaps we are only as yet at the very threshold of the work which lies before us."

The third and fourth Lectures form two parts of an historical review of the relations of Church and State in this country; the former treating of those relations during the Pre-reformation period, while the latter traces the features which they present from the sixteenth century down to our own time. A portion of this ground is again surveyed by the Professor, though from a different point of view, in the Lecture which concludes the volume, in which, leaving the question of the effect of the State connection upon the Church, he discusses the influence of the Church upon the affairs of the State. The three Lectures together present a very interesting and comprehensive view of the subject, and the consideration of it is aptly introduced by a brief account of the origin and progress of the connection between the Church and the State in Christianity generally. We entirely agree with Professor Burrows in his repudiation of the many theories on the relations of Church and State which have from time to time been promulgated, and in his recourse to facts, and facts only, for an estimate of those relations. They have, in truth, been so diverse under different circumstances, and are capable of such ever varying modifications, that no theory which will afford a satisfactory solution for them in one age, or amongst one people, will tally with the phenomena exhibited by them at another time, or elsewhere; and the adoption of a definite theory tends to narrow our view of the subject, and to make us regard as imperfect a state of things which does not in all respects answer to our ideal, but may, uotwith

standing, be the best adapted for the circumstances under which it exists.

Professor Burrows looks upon the connection between Church and State, originally formed in the time of Constantino, as an absorption of the State by the Church.

"It would be more correct to say that the Church of the fourth century forced the State into combination with her, than to speak of the Emperors as patrons of the Church. No other policy than an acknowledgment of Christianity as the State religion could have made government possible. The mass of the people of the East, the source from which the army was so largely drawn, had seriously and intelligently embraced Christianity. It was not so in the West, but the political power of Paganism was gone. From the East, the State Christianity, retarded by the different nature of Western society and institutions, gradually, in spite of all obstacles, mado its •way. The powers of the whole Roman world became the powers of Christ."

But this establishment of Christianity, always imperfect in the West, was destined there to meet with a rude shock, and, for a time, a complete overthrow. Upon the incursion of the barbarians, the religion of Christ ceased to be the faith of tho rulers of Western Europe, and was there reduced once more to being the creed of a subject class. But in her interval of triumph, the Church had learnt the benefit and acquired the means of consolidation; and now that the State powers were adverse, Christians, throughout all the countries which represented the dismembered empire of the West, looked to the city which had formerly been their ecclesiastical, because their political head, for that guidance and support in matters spiritual, which in matters temporal she could no longer yield to them. Thus it came to pass that the disestablishment of Christianity, which necessarily ensued upon the conquests of the pagan barbarians, led the Christian communities, in the countries which they overran, to accept the ecclesiastical domination of the Pope, in consideration of the weight and support afforded by a union under one head. The result survives, after the cause which occasioned it has ceased to exist. When the conquerors, in process of time, themselves accept Christianity, they accept the spiritual sovereignty of Rome as part and parcel of it; and upon the Church becoming once more conterminous with the State, we see the relations between the two, in all the continental nations of Western Europe, affected and interfered with by this external connexion of the former with a foreign head.

In our own country, a different order of events was destined, by the providence of God, to produce a different condition of things. England, too, was overrun by pagan invaders; in England Christianity was disestablished, but the disestablished Church, instead of gradually regaining its position, as among

« ZurückWeiter »